That's right. Batman is always on high buildings and structures. It doesn't mean he's watching over Gotham. What is he expecting to see standing on that bridge, Bane taking a swim in the water below lol?

It was a cool visual shot. That's all.

Something wrong about that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

If there wasn't a necessary point to show Batman glide in the air, then it's best to not show it, imo.

I don't know if it would've been necessary, but I would've loved to have seen Batman glide-kick Bane during that final fight. But that's just me.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight

When you're a show that has the writer of The Dark Knight, Jesus, Ben Linus and produced by JJ Abrams, it's hard to get cancelled.

In TDK he was listening to a broadcast message Joker was making about finding "Harvey Dent" in that apartment.

So he wasn't really overlooking Gotham either?

Quote:

In Rises, he's on his way to meet Catwoman to find Bane, and decides to randomly stop to stand on a bridge and admire the view. It was a cool money shot. That's all. If that kind of thing can be put in, then so could a gliding shot.

Aside from BB where it didn't look like the Narrows, both TDK and TDKR then were not of Batman watching the city and just money shots.

No, he was listening to a broadcast signal by the Joker. Don't you remember the scene? He had his hand to his ear and you hear him listening to Joker say "8th and Orchard. You'll find Harvey Dent there".

But then you could say they could have had him do that ANYWHERE. Nolan chose a cool rooftop shot. A money shot.

Quote:

both TDK and TDKR then were not of Batman watching the city and just money shots.

Right. So your claim that there's no need for a gliding scene is nonsense. Cool shots of Batman are always welcome. It doesn't have to have some profound purpose.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

The shot of Batman on the bridge probably would have made more sense right before the war starts. Batman meets Gordon, frees the cops, then the bridge shot of day break. He's still wanted at this point, why would he just climb up there?

That's right. Batman is always on high buildings and structures. It doesn't mean he's watching over Gotham. What is he expecting to see standing on that bridge, Bane taking a swim in the water below lol?

It was a cool visual shot. That's all.

What a bizarre assessment. It's a symbolic shot to show that Batman is back watching over Gotham. Just because you decided to reduce it to nothing doesn't mean that's what it was.

__________________
"No great genius has ever existed without some touch of madness." - Aristotle

So you're only just assuming it's the Narrows, because it definitely looks like it was in the middle of Gotham City where there's a mesh of brown and blue as we see in TDK.

Quote:

No, he was listening to a broadcast signal by the Joker. Don't you remember the scene? He had his hand to his ear and you hear him listening to Joker say "8th and Orchard. You'll find Harvey Dent there".

But then you could say they could have had him do that ANYWHERE. Nolan chose a cool rooftop shot. A money shot.

Okay then, so the TDK and TDKR can both be shown as "money shots" and he's not even watching Gotham City(one could say the same for BB even). Still great shots of Batman over Gotham, though. And the theme is consistent in all three films.

Quote:

Right. So your claim that there's no need for a gliding scene is nonsense. Cool shots of Batman are always welcome. It doesn't have to have some profound purpose.

Even if all three can be viewed as "money shots", they have a theme with all three with certain times of night with Batman still being shot in overlooking poses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDonaldD

The shot of Batman on the bridge probably would have made more sense right before the war starts. Batman meets Gordon, frees the cops, then the bridge shot of day break. He's still wanted at this point, why would he just climb up there?

Before the film came out I always thought that scene was really meant for to be shown before a huge battle scene or even the last scene of the film since Nolan had always shown us the endings of BB and TDK already in their trailers.

Yeah, at first I was struggling to come up with a literal reason for the bridge shot, then I realized it was a both just a money shot/visual metaphor. I think it was there to represent the "pride before the fall". He's standing proud looking over Gotham from above, but he's about to hit rock bottom down beneath the city he loves.

Yeah, at first I was struggling to come up with a literal reason for the bridge shot, then I realized it was a both just a money shot/visual metaphor. I think it was there to represent the "pride before the fall". He's standing proud looking over Gotham from above, but he's about to hit rock bottom down beneath the city he loves.

Very solid way of looking at it. Besides, in every film we got a shot of Batman standing on top of some large building, or bridge in TDKR case. Very nice visuals, indeed.

Would have been a better entrance than "So you came to die with your city?" "No, I came to stop you."

Nearly anything would be better than that awful comeback line.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBat812

What a bizarre assessment. It's a symbolic shot to show that Batman is back watching over Gotham.

No, it's not. It's money shot thrown in on Batman's trip to meet Catwoman and find Bane. Why would he be watching over the city when he has a specific place to go at a specific time to find the current greatest threat to Gotham?

It was a needless, pointless cool shot of Batman. Nothing more.

Quote:

Just because you decided to reduce it to nothing doesn't mean that's what it was.

Whereas you deciding to make something up about a meaningless fancy shot of Batman standing on a bridge on his way to meet Catwoman is so valid.

Nice hypocrisy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

So you're only just assuming it's the Narrows. because it definitely looks like it was in the middle of Gotham City where there's a mesh of brown and blue as we see in TDK

Since it's the scene right after Batman took down Falcone in the Narrows, yes.

But since you insist on pushing this point, then lets entertain your argument and say you're right. Then it's just another money shot isn't it. So you're essentially backing up my point. Needless money shots of Batman just standing there are inserted into the movies. TDK's was Batman listening to the Joker, not watching the city. TDKR's was Batman on his way to meet Catwoman, so why would he be stopping on a bridge to watch the city?

Okay then, so the TDK and TDKR can both be shown as "money shots" and he's not even watching Gotham City(one could say the same for BB even). Still great shots of Batman over Gotham, though.

Right. So lets get back to the original point of all of this; your statement that a gliding shot shouldn't be done unless it's necessary.

Why can we have this needless cool money shots of Batman just standing on bridges and buildings, but a shot of Batman gliding into a battle scene or gliding anywhere is deemed unnecessary to you?

Quote:

Even if all three can be viewed as "money shots", they have a theme with all three with certain times of night with Batman still being shot in overlooking poses.

So what? We know he was just standing there listening to the Joker in TDK. He wasn't watching anything. So that renders that argument useless. We know he was on his merry way to meet Selina to find Bane in TDKR's. Why would he be stopping on a bridge in the middle of the water to scope out his city? So that's another one rendered useless.

So again these shots were not necessary at all. They were just put in for visually pleasing purposes, just like a gliding shot would be. So you have no valid reason to argue against one, have you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Yeah, at first I was struggling to come up with a literal reason for the bridge shot, then I realized it was a both just a money shot/visual metaphor.

Ah some common sense at last.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

Would have been a better entrance than "So you came to die with your city?" "No, I came to stop you."

I'd be sobbing all over the place with joy if that had been the case.

I didn't mind Bane's line, but Batman could have made a WAY more 'Batman' entrance than strolling up through the crowd looking somewhat lost and making a D: face (which he seems to have started doing constantly since mid-TDK), then pitching the most basic, obvious one-liner of the trilogy.

The shot of Batman on the bridge probably would have made more sense right before the war starts. Batman meets Gordon, frees the cops, then the bridge shot of day break. He's still wanted at this point, why would he just climb up there?

This would've been perfect, actually. The shot always feels a bit random whenever I watch the movie, especially the first time. I was just like, oh, there's that beautiful shot. Hm.

__________________

Take a moment and wander off - my dreamy outer space surrealist artwork

I didn't mind Bane's line, but Batman could have made a WAY more 'Batman' entrance than strolling up through the crowd looking somewhat lost and making a D: face (which he seems to have started doing constantly since mid-TDK), then pitching the most basic, obvious one-liner of the trilogy.

Maaaan.

I agree :/

__________________

Take a moment and wander off - my dreamy outer space surrealist artwork

Probably a stunt Nolan didn't want Bale to do with climbing up all the way up on a bridge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustyCage

I'd be sobbing all over the place with joy if that had been the case.

I didn't mind Bane's line, but Batman could have made a WAY more 'Batman' entrance than strolling up through the crowd looking somewhat lost and making a D: face (which he seems to have started doing constantly since mid-TDK), then pitching the most basic, obvious one-liner of the trilogy.

Not have the bomb on an inevitable timer. It could still have a timer of sorts after the button is pressed or whatever, but having the "revolution" of Bane be a farce was a problem with me.

Talia's sleeping with Wayne would have been revealed to have been so she could father and raise his child as her real revenge against him. It would have been quite easy to have Wayne in the prison for 9 and a half months instead of 5...

Really, just a few little things would have made the plot much better and with less holes.

I think he should have dropped his Batman voice when he was around Bane PERIOD. He knew who he was, so I'm not sure as to why he chose to keep grumbling.

That and as much as I love TDKR, I think it would have been more successful if the film was broken into two parts. Gave more focus to how Gotham ITSELF was suffering under Bane's reign. You didn't receive the same hindsight like you did in BB and TDK, so the idea of the real danger wasn't present in comparison.

You guys really think TDKR should have been split into two films, eh? I really think a 3h20m film would have been perfect. Also, have more conflict with the citizens dealing with Bane's reign over Gotham and Gordon's lie being exposed.

Most of my problems with TDKR stem in how Nolan dealt with Gotham's plight, and that's pretty much exclusive to the second act. It's such a shame, because the first act, IMO, was perfectly setup. The various mentionings of the rich vs the poor, the orphans and how they were affected by the poverty within Gotham. We even see how desperate Selina is with her lifestyle as a crook on the run, with the "ground shrinking beneath her feet".

Definitely put me in the "non" 2 movie camp too. If given a choice between splitting it into 2 parts and adding another 10-15 minutes, I'd definitely go with the latter. But I'll gladly take the film as is over it being spit into two films. I just feel very strongly that splitting it up would have really disrupted the emotional experience of witnessing Bruce's entire journey in one sitting. I think it would have diluted the impact. I remember there were rumors that WB wanted Nolan to do this, I was against it then and I'm against it now.